MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571430737 · doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-87

Does policy grow on trees?

2014· letter· en· W1571430737 on OpenAlexafffund
Bartha Maria Knoppers

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Ethics · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhilosophy of medicineProcess (computing)ElaborationEpistemologyPolitical scienceSociologyData scienceSocial scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policymaking is both an art and a science. It is a long process of research, debate and consensus (where possible). The elaboration of the Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-Related Data serves as an illustration of this process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.020
Scholarly communication0.0160.036
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0680.063
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.537
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.067 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EthicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207